Section 33(C)(2) cannot decide disputed entitlement, successor liability, or continued employment claims under industrial law.

Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is confined to computation of a pre-existing or already adjudicated right, and cannot be used to determine whether workmen have a right to continued employment, whether a transferee corporation is liable under a settlement, or whether successor liability exists. Claims that require adjudication of entitlement, employer liability, or service continuation must be raised as an industrial dispute under Section 10. On transfer of an undertaking, Section 25FF places retrenchment compensation liability primarily on the transferor unless the statutory proviso is met, and such liability cannot be imposed on the transferee through summary computation proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether claims requiring adjudication of the existence of a right to continue in employment, or the liability of the transferee corporation under the settlement, could be entertained under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (ii) Whether the workmen's claims against the transferee corporation for retrenchment compensation or continued employment arose under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the settlement dated 25 August 1965.

Issue (i): Whether claims requiring adjudication of the existence of a right to continue in employment, or the liability of the transferee corporation under the settlement, could be entertained under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: Proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) are in the nature of execution proceedings and presuppose an existing right to money or benefit already adjudicated or otherwise provided for. The Labour Court may make only an incidental enquiry needed to identify claimants or compute an admitted benefit, but it cannot decide questions that go to the root of entitlement, employer liability, transferor-successor status, or the right to be continued in service. A claim that workmen were wrongly not absorbed, or that the transferee corporation was bound to re-employ them under the settlement, would require adjudication of an industrial dispute and not mere computation of an existing benefit.

Conclusion: Such claims could not be entertained under Section 33(C)(2); the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide them.

Issue (ii): Whether the workmen's claims against the transferee corporation for retrenchment compensation or continued employment arose under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the settlement dated 25 August 1965.

Analysis: On transfer of an undertaking, Section 25FF makes compensation payable to the workmen as if retrenched, and the primary liability lies against the transferor employer, not the transferee, unless the statutory conditions in the proviso are satisfied. The settlement relied upon by the workmen could not be enforced in this proceeding to impose on the transferee corporation a liability to continue the workers in service or to pay compensation as though such liability had already been adjudicated. Questions whether the corporation was a successor, whether the settlement bound it, and what relief, if any, should follow were matters for industrial adjudication under Section 10, not for computation under Section 33(C)(2).

Conclusion: The workmen had no maintainable claim under Section 33(C)(2) against the transferee corporation on the basis of Section 25FF or the settlement.

Final Conclusion: The reference to the Labour Court was beyond the scope of Section 33(C)(2), and the disputes raised required industrial adjudication rather than summary computation of benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 33(C)(2) can be used only to compute a pre-existing or already adjudicated monetary or monetary-computable right, and it cannot be invoked to decide the foundational dispute as to entitlement, employer liability, succession, or reinstatement in service.

---